linux-kernel - intel_cacheinfo: potential NULL dereference?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:18:45 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	borislav.petkov@....com
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: intel_cacheinfo: potential NULL dereference?

Hi,

commit 9350f982 changed the code so it looks like:
static ssize_t store_cache_disable(struct _cpuid4_info *this_leaf,
                                   const char *buf, size_t count,
                                   unsigned int slot)
{
        struct pci_dev *dev = this_leaf->l3->dev;   <<1>>
        int cpu = cpumask_first(to_cpumask(this_leaf->shared_cpu_map));
        unsigned long val = 0;

#define SUBCACHE_MASK   (3UL << 20)
#define SUBCACHE_INDEX  0xfff

        if (!this_leaf->l3 || !this_leaf->l3->can_disable)  <<2>>
                return -EINVAL;

Stanse found, that this_leaf->l3 is dereferenced at <<1>>, but checked
for being NULL at <<2>>. Is the check superfluous or the dev assignment
should go after the check?

thanks,
--
js
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/